EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

I vote "crazy"

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - I vote "crazy"

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:45 pm   



On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:02:34 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
Quote:
On 02/01/2019 05:56 PM, bitrex wrote:

The snark in your reply is fairly well-constructed, and noted, but
generally speaking hardened targets like silos, tanks, bunkers etc. are
pretty resistant to the effects of air blasts even quite large and close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast
valves to protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It
doesn't take much of an overpressure, compared to those actually
produced, to kill. Something like only 35psi is lethal, and near
ground zero the overpressure is easily 150psi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve


The command/firing bunkers are deeper still and several miles from the
nearest actual silo but I agree that in the modern world most of the
"hardening" of the US silo-based forces is for show and would provide
zero defense whatsoever against a determined, massive strike against a
missile field.

the Soviet/now Russian ICBMs at least are quite accurate enough to land
right on top of every one of 'em less than 200 feet away probably and
and pop them all out of commission no problem at all if they're still
just sitting there when the warheads arrive.

Even Cheyenne Mountain facility isn't safe and hasn't been for a long
time now, part of why they don't use it for anything that important
anymore, all that hardening and giant blast doors are obsolete and just
make life difficult for day-to-day work. The Soviets/Russian have heavy
earth penetrators with large warheads that would just slam into the
mountain one behind another until the whole thing is rubble.

It's why US deterrence relies on a large SLBM fleet too because in a
first strike situation all that silo-based stuff is done.


Right, USSR was dead serious about destroying U.S. attack capability as well as defending the homeland.
https://fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_83_ch2.htm
No wonder they went broke.

This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapons. The crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to do significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeting civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its population centers vulnerable.


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:45 pm   



On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:44:15 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 1, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <v845E.78841$7I3.17318_at_fx26.iad>):

On 02/01/2019 03:57 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:37 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:07 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

It is. The entire U.S. missile field will be wiped out. The only
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan.htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
publicized damage of a 1MT detonated at 10,000 feet above the U.S.
Capitol, is to leave a 400 ft deep crater and burn everything inside
the beltway charcoal black. And they'll have a lot more than just on

coming into that prize.

A 1MT warheaded detonated on the ground doesn't leave a 400 foot deep
crater, much less 10,000 feet in the air

Probably just media sensationalism then... we can relax now that we know
the truth.


The snark in your reply is fairly well-constructed, and noted, but
generally speaking hardened targets like silos, tanks, bunkers etc. are
pretty resistant to the effects of air blasts even quite large and close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

The command/firing bunkers are deeper still and several miles from the
nearest actual silo but I agree that in the modern world most of the
"hardening" of the US silo-based forces is for show and would provide
zero defense whatsoever against a determined, massive strike against a
missile field.

the Soviet/now Russian ICBMs at least are quite accurate enough to land
right on top of every one of 'em less than 200 feet away probably and
and pop them all out of commission no problem at all if they're still
just sitting there when the warheads arrive.

Even Cheyenne Mountain facility isn't safe and hasn't been for a long
time now, part of why they don't use it for anything that important
anymore, all that hardening and giant blast doors are obsolete and just
make life difficult for day-to-day work. The Soviets/Russian have heavy
earth penetrators with large warheads that would just slam into the
mountain one behind another until the whole thing is rubble.

Blast effects vary as the cube of the distance, so a miss is as good as a
mile.

Russian missile guidance was not nearly accurate enough to be sure of
destroying all of each leg of the triad, back when it really mattered.


That's wrong. Soviet ICBM CEP took underwent a quantum improvement in the late 70s, such much so, it effectively tripled their attack force in that it was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target versus the previous assignment of three per target.

Quote:

At the peak of the Cold War, both sides had of order 10,000 warheads - even
1000 warheads would suffice.

The intent was to convince even the most rabid Russian commander that the US
counter strike would utterly destroy Mother Russia. And the Volga river would
run boiling to the sea.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad

If you remember back when the US held multiple open-air nuclear tests in the
Pacific in the 1950s. The US always announced the test in advance, and there
were always a bunch of Russian "fishing vessels" loitering nearby the
test site. Why didn´t the US Navy drive them off? Because it was necessary
that the Russians believed that the threat was real. They may actually have
been invited to witness the test, to feel the full effect.

You don´t want anyone to even think of trying, to think that one might win
is one were aggressive enough, so it was full overkill.

Joe Gwinn


Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:45 pm   



On Feb 1, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <on55E.189829$Fj3.79266_at_fx06.iad>):

Quote:
On 02/01/2019 06:44 PM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Blast effects vary as the cube of the distance, so a miss is as good as a
mile.

Russian missile guidance was not nearly accurate enough to be sure of
destroying all of each leg of the triad, back when it really mattered.

At the peak of the Cold War, both sides had of order 10,000 warheads - even
1000 warheads would suffice.

The intent was to convince even the most rabid Russian commander that the US
counter strike would utterly destroy Mother Russia. And the Volga river
would run boiling to the sea.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad

If you remember back when the US held multiple open-air nuclear tests in the
Pacific in the 1950s. The US always announced the test in advance, and there
were always a bunch of Russian "fishing vessels" loitering nearby the
test site. Why didnt the US Navy drive them off?

prolly cuz they were in international waters and the Navy lacked the
authority to do that.


Sure they do. Its done all the time, where an area is declared off limits
for a military exercise. Especially if live fire is involved. And at the
height of the Cold War and the Commie Threat, with memories of WW2 fresh in
mind, they were not shy about it.

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:45 pm   



On Feb 2, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<3a929ebd-fb12-44e7-83a0-d98713b576c2_at_googlegroups.com>):

Quote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:02:34 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 05:56 PM, bitrex wrote:

The snark in your reply is fairly well-constructed, and noted, but
generally speaking hardened targets like silos, tanks, bunkers etc. ar

pretty resistant to the effects of air blasts even quite large and clo
e
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast
valves to protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It
doesn't take much of an overpressure, compared to those actually
produced, to kill. Something like only 35psi is lethal, and near
ground zero the overpressure is easily 150psi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

The command/firing bunkers are deeper still and several miles from the
nearest actual silo but I agree that in the modern world most of the
"hardening" of the US silo-based forces is for show and would provide
zero defense whatsoever against a determined, massive strike against a
missile field.

the Soviet/now Russian ICBMs at least are quite accurate enough to land
right on top of every one of 'em less than 200 feet away probably and
and pop them all out of commission no problem at all if they're still
just sitting there when the warheads arrive.

Even Cheyenne Mountain facility isn't safe and hasn't been for a long
time now, part of why they don't use it for anything that important
anymore, all that hardening and giant blast doors are obsolete and just
make life difficult for day-to-day work. The Soviets/Russian have heavy
earth penetrators with large warheads that would just slam into the
mountain one behind another until the whole thing is rubble.

It's why US deterrence relies on a large SLBM fleet too because in a
first strike situation all that silo-based stuff is done.

Right, USSR was dead serious about destroying U.S. attack capability as well
as defending the homeland.
.<https://fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_83_ch2.htm
No wonder they went broke.


Reagans Star Wars did them in, because it put them into a spending contest
with a far richer country.

Quote:
This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapons. The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to do
significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeting
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its population
centers vulnerable.


More or less true, but no secret for sure:

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction>

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population centers
against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is by
design, to avoid another full-scale arms race like the one that led to the
accumulation of tens of thousands of warheads.

The theory of MAD was developed to ensure stability despite all this. Read
"On Thermonuclear War",Herman Kahn, Transaction Publishers, 2006, for the
full theory and rationale. It is a chilling read, but this is the deep
foundation.

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:45 pm   



On Feb 2, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<47536fec-69f0-4d82-a722-935881c7bad4_at_googlegroups.com>):

Quote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:44:15 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

On Feb 1, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <v845E.78841$7I3.17318_at_fx26.iad>):

On 02/01/2019 03:57 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:37 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:07 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

It is. The entire U.S. missile field will be wiped out. The only
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan.htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
publicized damage of a 1MT detonated at 10,000 feet above the U.S.
Capitol, is to leave a 400 ft deep crater and burn everything inside
the beltway charcoal black. And they'll have a lot more than just on

coming into that prize.

A 1MT warheaded detonated on the ground doesn't leave a 400 foot deep
crater, much less 10,000 feet in the air

Probably just media sensationalism then... we can relax now that we know
the truth.


The snark in your reply is fairly well-constructed, and noted, but
generally speaking hardened targets like silos, tanks, bunkers etc. are
pretty resistant to the effects of air blasts even quite large and close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much
of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

The command/firing bunkers are deeper still and several miles from the
nearest actual silo but I agree that in the modern world most of the
"hardening" of the US silo-based forces is for show and would provide
zero defense whatsoever against a determined, massive strike against a
missile field.

the Soviet/now Russian ICBMs at least are quite accurate enough to land
right on top of every one of 'em less than 200 feet away probably and
and pop them all out of commission no problem at all if they're still
just sitting there when the warheads arrive.

Even Cheyenne Mountain facility isn't safe and hasn't been for a long
time now, part of why they don't use it for anything that important
anymore, all that hardening and giant blast doors are obsolete and just
make life difficult for day-to-day work. The Soviets/Russian have heavy
earth penetrators with large warheads that would just slam into the
mountain one behind another until the whole thing is rubble.

Blast effects vary as the cube of the distance, so a miss is as good as a
mile.

Russian missile guidance was not nearly accurate enough to be sure of
destroying all of each leg of the triad, back when it really mattered.

That's wrong. Soviet ICBM CEP took underwent a quantum improvement in the
late 70s, such much so, it effectively tripled their attack force in that it
was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target versus
the previous assignment of three per target.
How do you know this, or that it’s true? Please provide cites.


By the way, the other problem with Russian weapons was reliability. They
would send multiple weapons to ensure that at least one loud bang happened,
accurate or not. The US does the same, but need fewer weapons per target to
ensure at least one sufficiently loud bang.

Joe Gwinn


Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:45 pm   



On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 11:59:46 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<3a929ebd-fb12-44e7-83a0-d98713b576c2_at_googlegroups.com>):

On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:02:34 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 05:56 PM, bitrex wrote:

The snark in your reply is fairly well-constructed, and noted, but
generally speaking hardened targets like silos, tanks, bunkers etc. ar

pretty resistant to the effects of air blasts even quite large and clo
e
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast
valves to protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It
doesn't take much of an overpressure, compared to those actually
produced, to kill. Something like only 35psi is lethal, and near
ground zero the overpressure is easily 150psi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

The command/firing bunkers are deeper still and several miles from the
nearest actual silo but I agree that in the modern world most of the
"hardening" of the US silo-based forces is for show and would provide
zero defense whatsoever against a determined, massive strike against a
missile field.

the Soviet/now Russian ICBMs at least are quite accurate enough to land
right on top of every one of 'em less than 200 feet away probably and
and pop them all out of commission no problem at all if they're still
just sitting there when the warheads arrive.

Even Cheyenne Mountain facility isn't safe and hasn't been for a long
time now, part of why they don't use it for anything that important
anymore, all that hardening and giant blast doors are obsolete and just
make life difficult for day-to-day work. The Soviets/Russian have heavy
earth penetrators with large warheads that would just slam into the
mountain one behind another until the whole thing is rubble.

It's why US deterrence relies on a large SLBM fleet too because in a
first strike situation all that silo-based stuff is done.

Right, USSR was dead serious about destroying U.S. attack capability as well
as defending the homeland.
.<https://fas.org/irp/dia/product/smp_83_ch2.htm
No wonder they went broke.

Reagan´s Star Wars did them in, because it put them into a spending contest
with a far richer country.

This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapons.. The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to do
significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeting
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its population
centers vulnerable.

More or less true, but no secret for sure:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population centers
against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is by
design, to avoid another full-scale arms race like the one that led to the
accumulation of tens of thousands of warheads.

The theory of MAD was developed to ensure stability despite all this. Read
"On Thermonuclear War",Herman Kahn, Transaction Publishers, 2006, for the
full theory and rationale. It is a chilling read, but this is the deep
foundation.


I read that decades ago.

Quote:

Joe Gwinn



Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:45 pm   



On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<47536fec-69f0-4d82-a722-935881c7bad4_at_googlegroups.com>):

On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:44:15 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

On Feb 1, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <v845E.78841$7I3.17318_at_fx26.iad>):

On 02/01/2019 03:57 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:37 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:07 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

It is. The entire U.S. missile field will be wiped out. The only
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan.htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
publicized damage of a 1MT detonated at 10,000 feet above the U.S.
Capitol, is to leave a 400 ft deep crater and burn everything inside
the beltway charcoal black. And they'll have a lot more than just on

coming into that prize.

A 1MT warheaded detonated on the ground doesn't leave a 400 foot deep
crater, much less 10,000 feet in the air

Probably just media sensationalism then... we can relax now that we know
the truth.


The snark in your reply is fairly well-constructed, and noted, but
generally speaking hardened targets like silos, tanks, bunkers etc. are
pretty resistant to the effects of air blasts even quite large and close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much
of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

The command/firing bunkers are deeper still and several miles from the
nearest actual silo but I agree that in the modern world most of the
"hardening" of the US silo-based forces is for show and would provide
zero defense whatsoever against a determined, massive strike against a
missile field.

the Soviet/now Russian ICBMs at least are quite accurate enough to land
right on top of every one of 'em less than 200 feet away probably and
and pop them all out of commission no problem at all if they're still
just sitting there when the warheads arrive.

Even Cheyenne Mountain facility isn't safe and hasn't been for a long
time now, part of why they don't use it for anything that important
anymore, all that hardening and giant blast doors are obsolete and just
make life difficult for day-to-day work. The Soviets/Russian have heavy
earth penetrators with large warheads that would just slam into the
mountain one behind another until the whole thing is rubble.

Blast effects vary as the cube of the distance, so a miss is as good as a
mile.

Russian missile guidance was not nearly accurate enough to be sure of
destroying all of each leg of the triad, back when it really mattered..

That's wrong. Soviet ICBM CEP took underwent a quantum improvement in the
late 70s, such much so, it effectively tripled their attack force in that it
was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target versus
the previous assignment of three per target.
How do you know this, or that it’s true? Please provide cites.


They came into satellite mapping technology that they used for a more precise mapping of the Earth's gravitational field along all their prospective trajectories. That and some stolen U.S technology did the trick for them. AW&ST ran an extensive expose on it sometime around 1980 IIRC.

Quote:

By the way, the other problem with Russian weapons was reliability. They
would send multiple weapons to ensure that at least one loud bang happened,
accurate or not. The US does the same, but need fewer weapons per target to
ensure at least one sufficiently loud bang.

Joe Gwinn



Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:45 pm   



On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 7:59:57 AM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:44:15 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 1, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <v845E.78841$7I3.17318_at_fx26.iad>):

On 02/01/2019 03:57 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:37 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:07 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

It is. The entire U.S. missile field will be wiped out. The only
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan.htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
publicized damage of a 1MT detonated at 10,000 feet above the U.S.
Capitol, is to leave a 400 ft deep crater and burn everything inside
the beltway charcoal black. And they'll have a lot more than just on

coming into that prize.

A 1MT warheaded detonated on the ground doesn't leave a 400 foot deep
crater, much less 10,000 feet in the air

Probably just media sensationalism then... we can relax now that we know
the truth.


The snark in your reply is fairly well-constructed, and noted, but
generally speaking hardened targets like silos, tanks, bunkers etc. are
pretty resistant to the effects of air blasts even quite large and close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

The command/firing bunkers are deeper still and several miles from the
nearest actual silo but I agree that in the modern world most of the
"hardening" of the US silo-based forces is for show and would provide
zero defense whatsoever against a determined, massive strike against a
missile field.

the Soviet/now Russian ICBMs at least are quite accurate enough to land
right on top of every one of 'em less than 200 feet away probably and
and pop them all out of commission no problem at all if they're still
just sitting there when the warheads arrive.

Even Cheyenne Mountain facility isn't safe and hasn't been for a long
time now, part of why they don't use it for anything that important
anymore, all that hardening and giant blast doors are obsolete and just
make life difficult for day-to-day work. The Soviets/Russian have heavy
earth penetrators with large warheads that would just slam into the
mountain one behind another until the whole thing is rubble.

Blast effects vary as the cube of the distance, so a miss is as good as a
mile.

Russian missile guidance was not nearly accurate enough to be sure of
destroying all of each leg of the triad, back when it really mattered.

That's wrong. Soviet ICBM CEP took underwent a quantum improvement in the late 70s, such much so, it effectively tripled their attack force in that it was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target versus the previous assignment of three per target.


Did that have anything to do with the US selling equipment to make better ball bearings to the Soviets? Or was that the Chinese? I seem to recall Toshiba had something to do with it, but that may have been a decade or two later than this.


Rick C.

- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:45 pm   



On Feb 2, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<e86e8075-1a83-4f39-bf0e-c07605feae62_at_googlegroups.com>):

Quote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 2, 2019, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote
(in article<47536fec-69f0-4d82-a722-935881c7bad4_at_googlegroups.com>):

On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:44:15 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

On Feb 1, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <v845E.78841$7I3.17318_at_fx26.iad>):

On 02/01/2019 03:57 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:37 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:07 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

It is. The entire U.S. missile field will be wiped out. The only
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan.htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
publicized damage of a 1MT detonated at 10,000 feet above the U.S.
Capitol, is to leave a 400 ft deep crater and burn everything inside
the beltway charcoal black. And they'll have a lot more than just on

coming into that prize.

A 1MT warheaded detonated on the ground doesn't leave a 400 foot deep
crater, much less 10,000 feet in the air

Probably just media sensationalism then... we can relax now that we
know
the truth.


The snark in your reply is fairly well-constructed, and noted, but
generally speaking hardened targets like silos, tanks, bunkers etc. are
pretty resistant to the effects of air blasts even quite large and
close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves
to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much
of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is
easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

The command/firing bunkers are deeper still and several miles from the
nearest actual silo but I agree that in the modern world most of the
"hardening" of the US silo-based forces is for show and would provide
zero defense whatsoever against a determined, massive strike against a
missile field.

the Soviet/now Russian ICBMs at least are quite accurate enough to land
right on top of every one of 'em less than 200 feet away probably and
and pop them all out of commission no problem at all if they're still
just sitting there when the warheads arrive.

Even Cheyenne Mountain facility isn't safe and hasn't been for a long
time now, part of why they don't use it for anything that important
anymore, all that hardening and giant blast doors are obsolete and just
make life difficult for day-to-day work. The Soviets/Russian have heavy
earth penetrators with large warheads that would just slam into the
mountain one behind another until the whole thing is rubble.

Blast effects vary as the cube of the distance, so a miss is as good as a
mile.

Russian missile guidance was not nearly accurate enough to be sure of
destroying all of each leg of the triad, back when it really mattered.

That's wrong. Soviet ICBM CEP took underwent a quantum improvement in the
late 70s, such much so, it effectively tripled their attack force in that
it
was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target versus
the previous assignment of three per target.
How do you know this, or that it’s true? Please provide cites.

They came into satellite mapping technology that they used for a more precise

mapping of the Earth's gravitational field along all their prospective
trajectories. That and some stolen U.S technology did the trick for them.
AW&ST ran an extensive expose on it sometime around 1980 IIRC.


I have subscribed to Aviation Week since forever, and my Father got it while
I was growing up.

I don’t recall this story. Can you remember anything specific enough for
Google to smile?

I also ran upon the following while trying to find the story:

..<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03071848508522276?journalCode=ru
si20>

Dr Steve Smith(1985) Problems of assessing missile accuracy, The RUSI
Journal, 130:4, 35-40,DOI: 10.1080/03071848508522276
(https://doi.org/10.1080/03071848508522276), 10 Jun 2008

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Smith_(academic)>

Joe Gwinn


Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 12:45 am   



On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 4:19:20 PM UTC-5, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 7:59:57 AM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:44:15 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 1, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <v845E.78841$7I3.17318_at_fx26.iad>):

On 02/01/2019 03:57 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:37 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:07 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

It is. The entire U.S. missile field will be wiped out. The only
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan.htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
publicized damage of a 1MT detonated at 10,000 feet above the U.S.
Capitol, is to leave a 400 ft deep crater and burn everything inside
the beltway charcoal black. And they'll have a lot more than just on

coming into that prize.

A 1MT warheaded detonated on the ground doesn't leave a 400 foot deep
crater, much less 10,000 feet in the air

Probably just media sensationalism then... we can relax now that we know
the truth.


The snark in your reply is fairly well-constructed, and noted, but
generally speaking hardened targets like silos, tanks, bunkers etc. are
pretty resistant to the effects of air blasts even quite large and close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

The command/firing bunkers are deeper still and several miles from the
nearest actual silo but I agree that in the modern world most of the
"hardening" of the US silo-based forces is for show and would provide
zero defense whatsoever against a determined, massive strike against a
missile field.

the Soviet/now Russian ICBMs at least are quite accurate enough to land
right on top of every one of 'em less than 200 feet away probably and
and pop them all out of commission no problem at all if they're still
just sitting there when the warheads arrive.

Even Cheyenne Mountain facility isn't safe and hasn't been for a long
time now, part of why they don't use it for anything that important
anymore, all that hardening and giant blast doors are obsolete and just
make life difficult for day-to-day work. The Soviets/Russian have heavy
earth penetrators with large warheads that would just slam into the
mountain one behind another until the whole thing is rubble.

Blast effects vary as the cube of the distance, so a miss is as good as a
mile.

Russian missile guidance was not nearly accurate enough to be sure of
destroying all of each leg of the triad, back when it really mattered..

That's wrong. Soviet ICBM CEP took underwent a quantum improvement in the late 70s, such much so, it effectively tripled their attack force in that it was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target versus the previous assignment of three per target.

Did that have anything to do with the US selling equipment to make better ball bearings to the Soviets? Or was that the Chinese? I seem to recall Toshiba had something to do with it, but that may have been a decade or two later than this.


Dunno about ball bearings but Toshiba sold them a prohibited high tech numerical milling machine that enabled them to make super balanced submarine propellers that could evade the sound thresholds of our sonobuoys at the time..

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/07/20/Toshiba-apologizes-to-nation-for-sale-of-submarine-technology/8735553752000/

Quote:


Rick C.

- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209



Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:45 am   



On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 6:40:59 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 4:19:20 PM UTC-5, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 7:59:57 AM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail..com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 6:44:15 PM UTC-5, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
On Feb 1, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <v845E.78841$7I3.17318_at_fx26.iad>):

On 02/01/2019 03:57 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 2:02:54 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:37 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 1, 2019 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 02/01/2019 12:07 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred_at_gmail.com wrote:

It is. The entire U.S. missile field will be wiped out. The only
way
to save them is to launch them prior to arrival of the incoming.

CEP is 200m for these behemoths:

http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ss18_satan.htm


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

200m should be fine for physical destruction of the silo if that c
unts
as "rocked out of alignment" I would say so.

Silo will become part of the crater. These will be altitude bursts.
he
publicized damage of a 1MT detonated at 10,000 feet above the U.S.
Capitol, is to leave a 400 ft deep crater and burn everything inside
the beltway charcoal black. And they'll have a lot more than just on

coming into that prize.

A 1MT warheaded detonated on the ground doesn't leave a 400 foot deep
crater, much less 10,000 feet in the air

Probably just media sensationalism then... we can relax now that we know
the truth.


The snark in your reply is fairly well-constructed, and noted, but
generally speaking hardened targets like silos, tanks, bunkers etc. are
pretty resistant to the effects of air blasts even quite large and close
ones

As far as people go, those shoulders must be equipped with blast valves to
protect against the overpressure of the blast wave. It doesn't take much of
an overpressure, compared to those actually produced, to kill. Something
like only 35psi is lethal, and near ground zero the overpressure is easily
150psi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_valve

The command/firing bunkers are deeper still and several miles from the
nearest actual silo but I agree that in the modern world most of the
"hardening" of the US silo-based forces is for show and would provide
zero defense whatsoever against a determined, massive strike against a
missile field.

the Soviet/now Russian ICBMs at least are quite accurate enough to land
right on top of every one of 'em less than 200 feet away probably and
and pop them all out of commission no problem at all if they're still
just sitting there when the warheads arrive.

Even Cheyenne Mountain facility isn't safe and hasn't been for a long
time now, part of why they don't use it for anything that important
anymore, all that hardening and giant blast doors are obsolete and just
make life difficult for day-to-day work. The Soviets/Russian have heavy
earth penetrators with large warheads that would just slam into the
mountain one behind another until the whole thing is rubble.

Blast effects vary as the cube of the distance, so a miss is as good as a
mile.

Russian missile guidance was not nearly accurate enough to be sure of
destroying all of each leg of the triad, back when it really mattered.

That's wrong. Soviet ICBM CEP took underwent a quantum improvement in the late 70s, such much so, it effectively tripled their attack force in that it was good enough to support only one warhead to destroy a hard target versus the previous assignment of three per target.

Did that have anything to do with the US selling equipment to make better ball bearings to the Soviets? Or was that the Chinese? I seem to recall Toshiba had something to do with it, but that may have been a decade or two later than this.

Dunno about ball bearings but Toshiba sold them a prohibited high tech numerical milling machine that enabled them to make super balanced submarine propellers that could evade the sound thresholds of our sonobuoys at the time.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/07/20/Toshiba-apologizes-to-nation-for-sale-of-submarine-technology/8735553752000/


Yeah, I think I'm mixing up two different things. I recall now the quiet propeller thing. That was while I was working DOD. The 70's thing was the precision grinding machines we sold the Soviets which likely produced the ball bearings used in gyroscopes of their ICBMs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/11/09/soviet-misuse-of-us-machinery-seen/893b9292-3936-4feb-94d4-89af2ab76fbe/?utm_term=.2a6cd65103e7

Some argue this was not actually consequential for several reasons.


Rick C.

+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

bitrex
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:45 am   



On 02/02/2019 11:59 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Quote:
Reagan´s Star Wars did them in, because it put them into a spending contest
with a far richer country.

This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapons. The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to do
significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeting
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its population
centers vulnerable.

More or less true, but no secret for sure:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population centers
against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is by
design

By "design" in that the first type of missile defense is impossible with
20th or early 21st century technology

bitrex
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:45 am   



On 02/02/2019 11:59 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Quote:
This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapons. The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to do
significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeting
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its population
centers vulnerable.

More or less true, but no secret for sure:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population centers
against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is by
design, to avoid another full-scale arms race like the one that led to the
accumulation of tens of thousands of warheads.

The theory of MAD was developed to ensure stability despite all this. Read
"On Thermonuclear War",Herman Kahn, Transaction Publishers, 2006, for the
full theory and rationale. It is a chilling read, but this is the deep
foundation.

Joe Gwinn


Population centers weren't anyone's first pick of targets, when SLBM
accuracy was poorer as compared to ICBMs (they're almost on parity now
afaik) they were for hitting less hardened targets of _military_
significance like bomber bases, airfields and airports enough to
accommodate military aircraft, submarine bases, refineries, radar
installations like PAVE/PAWs sites, Army bases, shipbuilding sites like
Groton CT, logistics sites like Raytheon factories and Boeing plants, etc.

Time of flight from a submarine 200 miles out in the Atlantic to a
bomber base in say Texas is 10 minutes, 8 minutes if the missile is on a
depressed trajectory, the sub fires a few dozen warheads all around it
the goal is to get those B1s and B-52s before they can get away.

Unfortunately for civilians many of these things are in or quite close
to population centers. and fallout a few days after the prevailing winds
from all those strikes in the West carried it east would be lethal
levels for unprotected civilians underneath, surviving would require
good shelter for at least several weeks.

Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:45 pm   



On Feb 2, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <Hkt5E.255381$n85.24790_at_fx38.iad>):

Quote:
On 02/02/2019 11:59 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Reagans Star Wars did them in, because it put them into a spending contest
with a far richer country.

This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapons.
The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to do
significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeting
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its population
centers vulnerable.

More or less true, but no secret for sure:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population centers
against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is by
design
By "design" in that the first type of missile defense is impossible with
20th or early 21st century technology


Its still impractical to handle 10,000 warheads coming over the pole. Even
if one achieved 90% kill of the incoming missiles, enough would get through
to destroy the target country. Even if 99% kill was achieved, the target
country would be a fair mess, probably crippled. However, hard military
targets would largely survive, and retain their ability to counter-strike.

The "by design" is political - nobody wanted to spend ten times as much
to achieve the same level of deterrence. There is a history of such things:

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty>

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn
Guest

Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:45 pm   



On Feb 2, 2019, bitrex wrote
(in article <wgt5E.169034$nO2.159617_at_fx08.iad>):

Quote:
On 02/02/2019 11:59 AM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

This was major difference in the two strategies: U.S. was fixated on
destroying civilian populations, USSR was fixated on destroying weapons.
The
crummy little SLBM warheads, on the order of 40kt, were too small to do
significant harm to hardened targets like silos, they were all targeting
civilian population centers. And the U.S. deliberately left its population
centers vulnerable.

More or less true, but no secret for sure:

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Basically, there was and is no practical way to defend population centers
against 10,000 warheads coming over the North Pole. Current missile defenses
are intended only to handle rogues and accidents, and have far too few
resources to do anything effective against a full-scale attack. This is by
design, to avoid another full-scale arms race like the one that led to the
accumulation of tens of thousands of warheads.

The theory of MAD was developed to ensure stability despite all this. Read
"On Thermonuclear War", Herman Kahn, Transaction Publishers, 2006, for the
full theory and rationale. It is a chilling read, but this is the deep
foundation.

Joe Gwinn

Population centers weren't anyone's first pick of targets, when SLBM
accuracy was poorer as compared to ICBMs (they're almost on parity now
afaik) they were for hitting less hardened targets of _military_
significance like bomber bases, airfields and airports enough to
accommodate military aircraft, submarine bases, refineries, radar
installations like PAVE/PAWs sites, Army bases, shipbuilding sites like
Groton CT, logistics sites like Raytheon factories and Boeing plants, etc.

Time of flight from a submarine 200 miles out in the Atlantic to a
bomber base in say Texas is 10 minutes, 8 minutes if the missile is on a
depressed trajectory, the sub fires a few dozen warheads all around it
the goal is to get those B1s and B-52s before they can get away.


This is the purpose of the Early Warning Radars:

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_State_Phased_Array_Radar_System>

Quote:

Unfortunately for civilians many of these things are in or quite close
to population centers. and fallout a few days after the prevailing winds
from all those strikes in the West carried it east would be lethal
levels for unprotected civilians underneath, surviving would require
good shelter for at least several weeks.


Yep. The point is deterrence, to convince the other that their own country
would also die, so they are never tempted to even try.

Joe Gwinn

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - I vote "crazy"

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map